|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are still feat-swapping, as in the playtest, though with some tweaks to make them work a little better (e.g., some archetypes have skill feats as well as class feats that you can access once you've bought into the archetype).
Jason talked about archetypes a fair amount in a January Know Direction interview, recapped HERE. One interesting thing he said is that they had expected the feat-swapping archetypes to be unpopular and controversial, but the surveys showed that they were well-liked.
And Luis Loza today confirmed that the archetypes presented in the world guide are playtest-style archetypes.
This doesn't necessarily preclude there *also* being feature-swapping archetypes a la PF1, I suppose, but if we ever see those I'm sure it will be in a future book. (In the January interview Jason did mention the possibility of doing some feature-swapping archetypes at some point, but as I recall he sounded pretty noncommittal about it.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some classes like Rogue, Alchemist or Ranger the "paths" they could take are a bit like PF1 archetypes. I expect more classes to be able to take a path.
As for the Urban Barbarian - a Urban totem (Road Rage?) could exist.
I hope PF1 archetypes don't come back in the same form. Especially the stacking multiple archetypes parts. That's exactly the fiddly stuff that PF2 wants to avoid.
Yeah, I agree with masda_gib
Old archetypes are the new "Class Paths"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I think there's a place for class specific archetypes. I don't think they are worth prioritizing for core, though, because class agnostic archetypes are useful for everyone. By definition, you get much more mileage per page count than if you went class specific.
Eh, I think there's a place for class specific archetypes. I don't think they are worth prioritizing for core, though, because class agnostic archetypes are useful for everyone. By definition, you get much more mileage per page count than if you went class specific.
Yeah but they can be a bit blander. I don't suppose we'll see a class-agnostic Cyphermage, though we might see a class-agnostic Hellknight perhaps.
Talking about non-PRC stuff, we have some concepts that would be hard to emulate, like the no-armor clerics, Aldoris, Scaled Monk and stuff that already has an unique gimmick or identity at level 1.
Eh, I think there's a place for class specific archetypes. I don't think they are worth prioritizing for core, though, because class agnostic archetypes are useful for everyone. By definition, you get much more mileage per page count than if you went class specific.Yeah but they can be a bit blander. I don't suppose we'll see a class-agnostic Cyphermage, though we might see a class-agnostic Hellknight perhaps.
Talking about non-PRC stuff, we have some concepts that would be hard to emulate, like the no-armor clerics, Aldoris, Scaled Monk and stuff that already has an unique gimmick or identity at level 1.
A fair bit of that could be covered by class feats, though. Scaled Fist would simply be a first level class feat that makes CHA your ki stat instead of WIS, and probably gives you an additional perk or power. A cleric feat could have the requirement that you aren't wearing armor to use it. We don't have a ton of class features one needs to trade away anymore. Aldoris... aren't they a prestige class you can't take until level 6 with 4 specific feats? It also doesn't seem to do anything you can't do with existing class feats.
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
|
|
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
That's really interesting! (And, I think, a really smart decision to put that in core—we all saw how weird it was for the PF1 archetype rules to be in APG rather than core.)
Excited for the game. Glad yall are finally able to start talking about it!
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
I’m delighted to hear that! With the customization of class feat archetypes and eventually getting class archetypes, I’m looking forward to really being able to tinker with my character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.I’m delighted to hear that! With the customization of class feat archetypes and eventually getting class archetypes, I’m looking forward to really being able to tinker with my character.
Yeah. The possibilities of (base class + class archetype + multiclassing feat archetype) have me salivating.
Might finally figure out how to build a cleric I enjoy playing, lol. Something I've tried and failed at for years! I have strong "help the party" instincts but cleric features and spell lists have always been, just ... boring to me. I know it's all personal taste, so not knocking the rules. But excited to see if I can accomplish in PF2 what I never could in 3.0/3.5/PF1 ...
ALSO, if these are "class archetypes" I wonder if we'll see corresponding "ancestry archetypes" at some point, or if that role will just be filled by Heritages (which is what I would expect, and which is probably the right choice I guess)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, you can just say it. We all want a lycanthropy ancestry archetype.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OMG Mark you are awesome, thanks for the confirmation.
I'm really glad you're taking time to work to "Future-Proof" the CRB, Gods know it was a headache last time around every time some feature is printed that calls-out looking for X and EXACTLY X when later on you print X (But also not X), things like all Barbarian hybrid classes and literally anything that deals with Shapeshifting/Polymorph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well.
As a potential 3rd party author, I really like this answer. Thank you!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
This is wonderful. I'm pleased my prediction that we'll have them eventually is actually enshrined in the book. That's super nice and comforting to those who really want such Archetypes (myself included).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
Very pleased by this it shows a good amount of foresight that will hopefully allow PF2 to grow gracefully.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very exciting news. The strong potential for clean growth with a minimum of bloat is one of the things I am most excited about 2E for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Class) Archetypes were one of my favorite things about PF1, so I'm delighted to hear that they'll be back at some point (even if not in core).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.This is wonderful. I'm pleased my prediction that we'll have them eventually is actually enshrined in the book. That's super nice and comforting to those who really want such Archetypes (myself included).
With the removal of Resonance, greater feel for your Ancestry from the get go mechanically, and the inclusion of definition for Class Archetypes I'm pretty stoked so far. I'm very surprised that I keep finding out about all these things dotted around in different threads, rather than a blog post or one thread to rule them all, so far it's been this thread (via a link from another thread) and then another thread that broke down two Twitch or Know Direction (can't remembe now which it was, or both?) streams/discussions on the ongoing changes behind the scenes...
With the removal of Resonance, greater feel for your Ancestry from the get go mechanically, and the inclusion of definition for Class Archetypes I'm pretty stoked so far. I'm very surprised that I keep finding out about all these things dotted around in different threads, rather than a blog post or one thread to rule them all, so far it's been this thread (via a link from another thread) and then another thread that broke down two Twitch or Know Direction (can't remembe now which it was, or both?) streams/discussions on the ongoing changes behind the scenes...The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.This is wonderful. I'm pleased my prediction that we'll have them eventually is actually enshrined in the book. That's super nice and comforting to those who really want such Archetypes (myself included).
The bulk of what we know was from that twitch and it got compiled in a thread on the playtest board what feels like months ago.
Erik Mona also appears to be rather active on Reddit, I discovered by accident recently. Lots of stuff I didn’t know there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to hear about "class archetypes" being a thing for sure.
I hope they function a bit more like the alternate racial traits did in 1e.
That is to say that you can choose to swap out specific class features on an individual basis.
One of the things that was a huge pain in the butt in 1e was having to sit there and worry about archetypes clashing with each other.
Another was having to choose between archetypes I wanted because a specific feature I didn't care about happened to clash.
Anyway, that's what I hope.
Good to hear about "class archetypes" being a thing for sure.
I hope they function a bit more like the alternate racial traits did in 1e.
That is to say that you can choose to swap out specific class features on an individual basis.One of the things that was a huge pain in the butt in 1e was having to sit there and worry about archetypes clashing with each other.
Another was having to choose between archetypes I wanted because a specific feature I didn't care about happened to clash.Anyway, that's what I hope.
I'm fond of class archetypes coming as a package deal, personally. It lets them support the archetype's concept more.
I wonder if class archetypes will still be stackable? They're going to be working with a smaller base, assuming they can't trade out class feats, so they might just avoid the headache of stacking interactions by limiting it to one class archetype on a character.
Good to hear about "class archetypes" being a thing for sure.
I hope they function a bit more like the alternate racial traits did in 1e.
That is to say that you can choose to swap out specific class features on an individual basis.One of the things that was a huge pain in the butt in 1e was having to sit there and worry about archetypes clashing with each other.
Another was having to choose between archetypes I wanted because a specific feature I didn't care about happened to clash.Anyway, that's what I hope.
I'm fond of class archetypes coming as a package deal, personally. It lets them support the archetype's concept more.
I wonder if class archetypes will still be stackable? They're going to be working with a smaller base, assuming they can't trade out class feats, so they might just avoid the headache of stacking interactions by limiting it to one class archetype on a character.
I feel like class archetypes should be a package deal with regard to stuff they swap out from your core class, but might open up further optional choices for class feats as well.
As for stackable vs not, I'd lean towards not because the "do these archetypes conflict with each other" thing is pretty annoying.
Good to hear about "class archetypes" being a thing for sure.
I hope they function a bit more like the alternate racial traits did in 1e.
That is to say that you can choose to swap out specific class features on an individual basis.One of the things that was a huge pain in the butt in 1e was having to sit there and worry about archetypes clashing with each other.
Another was having to choose between archetypes I wanted because a specific feature I didn't care about happened to clash.Anyway, that's what I hope.
I'm fond of class archetypes coming as a package deal, personally. It lets them support the archetype's concept more.
I wonder if class archetypes will still be stackable? They're going to be working with a smaller base, assuming they can't trade out class feats, so they might just avoid the headache of stacking interactions by limiting it to one class archetype on a character.
Some classes have "class feats" in PF1, like Rogues and Slayers. The archetypes there have no issue replacing selections of those for fixed things, but we'll see.
I also like them as a package deal or with some restriction on stacking. Archetypes are flavorful, we don't need more cherry picking than this game already has. I don't want to see an old PF1 Monk sheet with 4 archetypes together.